A Comparative Analysis of Social

Contract Theorists

The idea of the social contract has been the primary argument of political philosophy; moreover, it has invited the thinkers to examine the issue of the interaction between the state and the society. Among the leading social contract theorists are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mary Wollstonecraft these concepts on which the basis of the social order should be. The theorists of this school of thought furnish different viewpoints which in total give a resonant insight into what is human nature, how government should be and how the individual should be treated. By analysing their literal composition, we can see how their arguments have some common features as well as unique aspects, creating the way for mixed ideas that have helped in forming our political theory.

The idea of a social contract is one of the foundational principles upon which is based the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mary Wollstonecraft (Hobbes, 1651; Locke, 1689; Rousseau, 1762; Wollstonecraft, 1792). Whilst this view is based on different premises, both during the hypothetical state of nature, individuals get into a decision or agreement which is responsible for this political authority.

This dealing shows the basis for the beginning of the clan and authority. In his work "Leviathan," Hobbes describes the condition to be characterised by a lack of peaceful coexistence which is followed by an absolute necessity of the leviathan, which is a state, to be the one with a strong central government to control the situation. Locke takes the other side, stressing the natural rights of people such as their lives, liberties and their property. He goes to the extent of advocating for the most limited government, being more of a government by people instead of exactly for them with checks and balances.

intends communal form of political order. While Wollstonecraft from her writings points out the inequality in political participation and the women's exclusion from the social contract agreements, she also advances the need for women's inclusion in the political framework, highlighting the need for gender equality considerations.

They all agree on a dependence on government legality, and on an idea that governmental power originates from the governed (people's consent) (Hobbes, 1651; Locke, 1689; Rousseau, 1762; Wollstonecraft, 1792). The early social contract theorists like Locke and Hobbes used the concepts of either direct or indirect consent to assert the legitimacy of the government's rulership only when it follows the terms of that social contract. Hence, our government system is a form of legitimate governance which is made by the people for the people.

Whereas they might reasonably dispute the accuracy of such premises as pertain to human nature and their perception of the initial state, those four theorists all seem to agree that they have got the individual's rights and freedoms covered (Hobbes, 1651; Locke, 1689; Rousseau, 1762; and Wollstonecraft, 1792). It doesn’t matter what grounds they have for these claims - natural rights (Locke), liberties (Rousseau), or entitlements (Wollstonecraft) - there is a general consensus on the fact that there are some non-derivative, innate qualities and privileges held by individuals prior to the formation of government.

Likewise, classical and later authors rarely advocate any particular form of government or mode of collective existence but what they frequently have in common is the attention they pay to the requirements of social order, security and individual rights within a society (Hobbes

people have a right to choose (Locke), or if they are with direct democracy in line with the general will (Rousseau) or the equality and inclusion of the oppressed groups (Wollstonecraft), the final goal is always the preservation of what is fair and just in society

From now on, let us examine the disagreements by discussing the two ways of thinking of these thinkers regarding human nature and the state of nature. According to Hobbes, a man is supposed to be self-interested and the original state of human life is the one as the stage of incessant warfares as well as chaos

Unlike the dark portrayal of human nature by Hobbes and the grim tone of the social historians, Locke and Rousseau are more optimistic with the former one seeing humans as rational beings capable of cooperation and the latter one sees mankind as pre-programmed with a 'good' nature but the society becomes the evil force to bring out the bad inheritance in man. Wollstonecraft's point of view is balanced; her concern is with the obstacles society puts before women, while at the same time taking into account humans' inherent abilities.

The contractarian approaches of social contract arguments by different thinkers are distinctly diverse. Hobbes puts forth the idea of a very dominant common power, the Leviathan, to maintain order and to save us from the "war of all against all" situation. Locke suggests a limited government carrying out only one activity of safeguarding individuals's unalienable rights, where social contract and subordinated law are critical. Rousseau states that he would rather give people the strength of the whole nation, rather than of the individual themselves. He believes in direct people's democracy, guided by the general will of the people. Wollstonecraft points out that her writing goes well together with the philosophy of contract – it is a critique from the social contract that she proposes and in it she also makes space for

women and equality, in that sense (Hobbes, 1651; Lock, 1689; Rousseau, 1762; Wollstonecraft, 1792).

Going further it can be noticed that although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau commonly abide by the social contract notion discoursed in gender-neutral circumstances, Wollstonecraft does distinctly in her open-minded discussion of gender and equality. She condemns women's denial of political participation and emphasizes the fundamental role education and empowering women in social contract could play to undermine social barriers.

For Hobbes, the Leviathan, who is a strong and overall authority holder, plays an important role in eliminating the disorder that is caused by selfish individuals in the society. According to Hobbes nature is a condition of war between individuals who are driven by self-interest and rivalry. Hobbes is of the opinion that, in order to leave behind this state of nation and control the chaos that could seem to be relying on order, the appearance of a sovereign authority with absolute power is desirable. In contrast, Locke's notion of limited government with Congressman's powers emanating from the people and are, in fact, subject to checks and balances come later (Locke, 1689). Yet more optimistic is his view when it comes to the state of nature claiming that individuals by nature possess these unlimited rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke points to the natural rights as the main task for which the government exists and the ruler accedes to power only when he secures the consent of the people.

Rousseau offers another point of view which involves a direct democracy based on the will and judgement of the people (Rousseau, 1878). He regards that the state of nature becomes a condition of equality and freedom ruled by the laws of nature; however in society private property and inequalities evolve. For the sake of reinstating liberty and equality among citizens,

Rousseau says that citizens should take part in government decision making communally through a unifying system of assemblies. However, Wollstonecraft's idea is the most extraordinary, as she emphasises the fact that women should be viewed as equal persons and should be fully respected as social contract members (Wollstonecraft, 1792). Instead of formulating the exact type of the system of government, Wollstonecraft criticises the inability of women to participate in political life, and puts forward the idea that the very same natural rights, which men possess, should also, without exception, be enjoyed by women. She proposes college and careers for women as well as the importance of their involvement in political representation, emphasising the obstacles of gender inequality in society.

In the end, the Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes with John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Mary Wollstonecraft different perspectives are shown. However, they tend jointly on the idea of social contract as a vital basis for political power although the manner in which each writer elaborates it on key aspects like nature vs. nurture of a man, role of State and minority groups inclusion, varies. In spite of disagreements, they (political thinkers of ancient Greece) have provided a fertile ground of thought, causing us to still reflect on what rules serve the purposes of society as well as what is right to the individual inside it. With every passing day, we learn and adapt to the intricacies of governing and organising the society.

References

Hobbes, T. (1651). “Leviathan”. London, England: Andrew Crooke.

Locke, J. (1689). “Two Treatises of Government”. London, England: Awnsham Churchill.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). “The Social Contract”. (G. D. H. Cole, Trans.). London, England: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”. London, England: J. Johnson.